4 ms·
Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of rea
by ganzuul 5y ago
Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything.
- JadeNB 5y ago> Reason over authority should be prior enough, shouldn't it? If the author makes a compelling argument then according to the authority of your own faculty of reason this should be afforded as much trust as you put into anything. Certainly one shouldn't believe everything an expert says uncritically, and anyone is entitled to investigate even the most authoritative pronouncement, but I think believing that pure reason, without the benefit of specialist training, is the equal if not the better of expertise and experience can lead one all too quickly down the wrong path. (For example, pure reason definitely rebels at first against quantum mechanics--at least, mine does, and I'm a mathematician!)
- ganzuul 5y agoI would say that people are gifted with different forms of reasoning and that we have no choice but to work with what we have, beneficiaries of specializing training or not. To deem some reasoning more pure than another would imply they have an order, but as a mathematician you know what Gödel has to say about that. Of course if the authority has critical information that can not be communicated then no compelling argument can be made and the age of enlightenment was but an illusion.